--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > **** > > Who has got insulted here, if there is no "I" Peter > > Suthpen? > > You don't understand what I'm talking about when I say > no "I".
Well, I do. But I also see why people call you on it, or im my case, rib you a lot about it. There is a genetic Peter. There is a social Peter. (sort of the outcome of nature/nuture effects). There is a professional Peter. And none have anything to do with Experienceness. aka Fullness. aka Home. aka IT. Its not that you identify now with IT or the SELF, but that there is no identication. There actually never was, it was as a mirage is on the desert. Seems real, until its gone. But your words are so much focussed on the subjective Experience "no I" that people seem to think that you are saying there is no genetic Peter, no social Peter, no Professional Peter. Which is silly. I know you don't mean that, but your words appear to some as so emphatic sometimes, the totality of the situation is not clear to evryone. Its like you "let go" of genetic Peter, social Peter, professional Peter. Or genetic Peter, social Peter, professional Peter let go of (their binding claim on) you. You let go. Only you didn't do anything. Its like "you got let go." Which is (in amerian idiom) "you got fired". You no longer work. Work happens but you are retired. (and this is what Dylan was referring to when he sang "I ain't going to work on Maggie's farm no more!" > > Why don't you discuss with people, who don't share > > your conceptual > > framework, or your stories. Wouldn't it be a good > > starting point to > > get beyond one's stories to discuss with people who > > have different > > stories than you? This is a good point. "no I" is one story. Its one marker. Its one way to describe IT. There are other stories. 9 million in the Naked City alone. It appears you have some qualm about letting go and enjoying and celebratng other stories. it not clear why. > I don't experience that as insulting. Passive > aggressive comments like, "hiding behind concepts," > and "he doesn't bother to answer me." are indicative > of another agenda going on in the conversation. IMO, you are reading way to much into simple words, finding things that are "insulting" or "other agendas" (tom is into "seeing agendas" also. go figure) Why can't the words just be a story. Someones story about you. So many stories. What does one more matter. If they like their story, should that be enough? And who cares if someone is passive agressive. That is their issue. Something is bothering them. Why is that a crime? (Its roughlyparallel to the fact that people have thoughts. Are the thoughts true? Maybe. maybe not. But its not a crime to have a thought, regardless of whether its true of not.) > > Why is he so attached to that story. "No > > I" is a story, a > > description by words of an inner state. > > Because the concept/story articulates my > phenomenological reality. I'm "attached " to it the > same way you'd be attached to the phrase, "It's > raining" if you went outside and rain drops were > falling from the sky. But its not the only "true" story. > When the phenomenological > reality changes, then the concept will be useless. And > I understand that the phenomenological reality of no > "I" is useless to you. Its not all black and white. I read into Irmeli's words, over time, certanly some Experience. It seems a lot of the "debate" is semantics, you each previeve words of the other in ways different than they were meant. On top of that, you each have different stories. I do recognize that different experiences can and will give rise to different stories. And, for example, if one hs no experience of Self, then anothers story of Self will not make sense. But from all of Irmeli's posts, it appears likely she has abundant Experience, Self knows Self. (I say appears, because words can be said by anyone.) Thus it appears you are debating "stories" about Experience. Which seems odd. All stories, if authentically based, are good, fun, interesting. > Fine. Just don't infer that > it's useless for me. I don't think she is. But why do you care if she infers it or not? its like SO WHAT! ... > >Apparently > > somehow these > > structures I have brought up, that define also our > > use of language, > > vanish totally in enlightened state according to > > Peter's reasoning. > > Yes, they do, pretty much! The shift from waking state > to Realization; the shift from a bound, limited, > subjective sense of self to an "unbounded" no-self > radically alters many cherished concepts of waking > state. The first being that there is no such thing as > an individual. But this is not the reality of "lowly", > waking state. Yes. That is the subjective experience. And yet there is still a genetic Peter, a social Peter, a professional Peter .... I believe that is her main point. No need for each to be digging trenches. > > > > Why does Peter still all the time express himself > > with the waking > > state language in his enlightened state if those > > strucuteres don't > > exist in enlightened state. > > I don't follow you here. How else am I going to > communicate with you or anyone else? Silence? Same response as above. > > That man is full of > > bullshit. > > Have you been talking to my wife? ;-) Yes, we have flipped her. She has been given full immunity and is now coopeating fully with the investigation. > > He claims I have insulted him. I have not. It is me, > > who should feel > > hurt because of his nonchalant, and condescending > > treatment of my > > comments. > > Perhaps nonchalant, but not condescending. If you > haven't had experiences of enlightenemnt, what are you > doing trying to talk about it? You can't! This might > seem condescending to you, but of what value is a > discussion of chocolate cake by a person who has never > tasted chocolate cake? Again, so black and white, so all or nothing. In reading Irmeli's posts over the years do you really think (or give a high probability of her never having any sort of "transcendental" experience? Do you think that after 30 years of meditation and/or other good things, most people have not experienced "no-I" as your story calls it, witnessing, being in the zone, actions just happening, Flow, -- not to mention fullness, wakefulness 21/5, completeness, etc. Is that enough of a taste of chocolate cake to discuss it a bit? Wilbur, says he does not experience it 24/7 and has written 10 book on it and talks incessently about it. Is it all garbage? And in some experience may have dawned of some things that has not dawned in you. For example, states where anger is not possilble. If that experienced is not there yet, I would say you may have tasted the frosting, but this cake has more tasty layers. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
